Talk:Hawaii's Opportunity Probation with Enforcement

Copyright problem removed

Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: http://www.hopeprobation.org/about/benchmarks-for-success. Infringing material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 15:14, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

NPOV Dispute: HOPE Program Results

The revisions on Feb. 24 (from user 82.65.62.8) for the HOPE Program Results section appear to be biased, and are nearly identical in content and tone to comments on several different news articles by a user named “TimeForJustice”:
http://khpr.drupal.publicbroadcasting.net/post/hawaiis-hope-probation-program#comment-1202575795
http://america.aljazeera.com/watch/shows/america-tonight/america-tonight-blog/2014/2/6/probation-hawaiihope.html
http://www.hawaiireporter.com/setting-the-record-straight-on-hope-probation/123#idc-cover

These similarities between the comments on those articles and the content of the Feb. 24 revisions suggests that the information may not be accurate, or source material may not be properly interpreted.
-- The sub-section 1 that begins with “Maximum terms of imprisonment exceeding those allowed by Hawaii Revised Statute (HRS) 706-624-(2)-(a) have been wittingly exceeded by Judge Alm” needs a citation, and is also argumentative.
-- The entirety of the section 2 that begins with “While every probationer should be treated equally in front of the law, these statistics only address drug offenders” is not cited and is argumentative.
-- The section that begins with “For many years red flags about HOPE probation have been raised” is vague as to who is being quoted, contains a quote not found in the source that is cited, and is argumentative.
-- The final sentence: “The HOPE probation program has also been severely criticized by persons best positioned to directly evaluate it in the State of Hawaii” is extremely vague, does not provide new information and does not seem to make use of the citation provided.

Apologies for poor formatting, but I noticed these issues and saw on the NPOV Dispute page that they should be brought up on the talk page. I would suggest removing the section or providing better citations, but do not have citations to support those claims. Section 1, for example, seems to be a legal argument that does not have any case law or legislation that one could cite to, to the best of my knowledge.72.234.179.113 (talk) 06:18, 5 March 2014 (UTC) I now have a Wikipedia account, for accountability. Sorry for forgetting to have one earlier InterrobangCat (talk) 06:52, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

NPOV Dispute: HOPE Program Results; Rebuttal of the Previous Comments

The issue raised about sub-section 1 can be easily addressed as Judge Alm responded to the critics of ref. [7] of the article in: http://www.hawaiireporter.com/setting-the-record-straight-on-hope-probation/123 In the case at hand, Judge Alm only needs to state whether he did or did not wittingly give illegal prison terms within the HOPE probation program. This is a trivial matter for the founder of a program whose basis is about "taking responsability for one's own actions." In that case, silence speaks for itself.

As recognized in footnote-1 of ref. [4] of the article, HOPE probation includes drug-involved probationers, domestic-violence probationers, and sex offenders. The study of ref. [4] and [5] is limited to drug-involved probationers assigned to HOPE who are not being supervised for domestic violence or sex offenses. This limitation should be precisely addressed in the article and no generalization to HOPE probation in general should be made. For example the "Warning Hearings" section addresses drug-involved probationers only; domestic-violence probationers and sex offenders do not benefit from this hearing.

The issue raised in the third section is extremely important as turning non violent offenders into murderers is certainly a very serious concern which is discussed in the reference. The sentence about the opinion recorded from HOPE probationers is just a possible explanation to this disastrous fact and is now given as such.

A city prosecutor is certainly in a good position to evaluate a probation program and in the reference provided, the city prosecutor is one of the person critical of the HOPE probation program. The reader can access the reference for more information on the issues raised within. In the article, "best qualified" was toned down into "well qualified"

In addition to these responses, it should be noted that the statistics provided at the beginning of the "HOPE probation results" section remain argumentative and questionable. These statistics result from the analysis of only one group (see ref. [4] and [5] of the article) and are based on one source of data: the State of Hawaii Attorney General (AG) Office. The way the AG office collected them is obscure. HOPE probation has been heavily self promoted and it is important to ensure that these data were recorded by persons not directly involved in the program.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.231.9.98 (talk • contribs) 16:59, 7 March 2014

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Hawaii's Opportunity Probation with Enforcement. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130106190009/http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2009/0907.kleiman.html to http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2009/0907.kleiman.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:00, 31 October 2017 (UTC)